Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Muta]

Missing shows like that isn't just missed revenue for the CSEC / the City, it is also missed revenue for the restaurant / tourism / hospitality industries, whose livelihoods depend on these types of shows for people to come into town and/or spend their money in associated ways. There's definitely a trickle-down effect here when we these shows are absent from visiting Calgary.

Once the new arena is approved and built (and I am optimistic it will be very soon), it will do a lot to alleviate this problem.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Muta

Missing shows like that isn't just missed revenue for the CSEC / the City, it is also missed revenue for the restaurant / tourism / hospitality industries, whose livelihoods depend on these types of shows for people to come into town and/or spend their money in associated ways.

Then they can pay for it.

I mean surely if their "livelihoods depend on these types of shows" then they won't have an issue making their own private investment in their own livelihoods.

[RM14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Then they can pay for it.

I mean surely if their "livelihoods depend on these types of shows" then they won't have an issue making their own private investment in their own livelihoods.

They're probably closer to wrapping up operations than investing into attracting concerts.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Muta

Missing shows like that isn't just missed revenue for the CSEC / the City, it is also missed revenue for the restaurant / tourism / hospitality industries, whose livelihoods depend on these types of shows for people to come into town and/or spend their money in associated ways. There's definitely a trickle-down effect here when we these shows are absent from visiting Calgary.

Once the new arena is approved and built (and I am optimistic it will be very soon), it will do a lot to alleviate this problem.

Many artists simply won't hit two Alberta venues no matter the conditions of the stadiums. If you're expecting a massive influx of concerts to come along with a new building, it will likely be far less noticeable than the average person would lead you to believe.

Furthermore, the bulk of concerts in this city are and will continue to be held at venues like Mac Hall, Grey Eagle, Jack Singer and others. Sure, the biggest acts won't play unless they can get access to the high capacity stadiums, but you're probably talking 5-10 large concerts a year increase with a new arena.

If this type of business is making or breaking a hotel, pub or restaurant, they probably don't deserve to be open in the first place.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Then they can pay for it.

I mean surely if their "livelihoods depend on these types of shows" then they won't have an issue making their own private investment in their own livelihoods.

Just to clarify, you are requesting that private businesses in the restaurant, hospitality, and tourism industries make a direct cash contribution to the construction of a new arena?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Then they can pay for it.

I mean surely if their "livelihoods depend on these types of shows" then they won't have an issue making their own private investment in their own livelihoods.

Uh, they do invest privately - in their own businesses. Do you know of of public-run restaurants / hotels? I don't. Do you mean those business need to pay for the arena?

Events like concerts help the economy by allowing businesses to thrive and establish stability in a healthy, competitive environment. This, in turn, builds the city's tax base. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Many artists simply won't hit two Alberta venues no matter the conditions of the stadiums. If you're expecting a massive influx of concerts to come along with a new building, it will likely be far less noticeable than the average person would lead you to believe.

Right, so then what's the reason why Calgary can't be the destination of choice for these shows? The main reason is because Edmonton has the proper infrastructure to host these artists, we don't.

I agree to some extent that some artists won't hit both cities, but that's because Live Nation books the highest bidder on ticket revenue from a geographical radius, conditional on the feasibility of the concert infrastructure required.

A new arena is primarily for sporting events, but the more concerts it can book into its schedule, the more profitable it will be.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

If this type of business is making or breaking a hotel, pub or restaurant, they probably don't deserve to be open in the first place.

No one said they are, I said it helps. There's a positive, trickle-down economic effect of having more artists come to Calgary.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Many artists simply won't hit two Alberta venues no matter the conditions of the stadiums. If you're expecting a massive influx of concerts to come along with a new building, it will likely be far less noticeable than the average person would lead you to believe.

Furthermore, the bulk of concerts in this city are and will continue to be held at venues like Mac Hall, Grey Eagle, Jack Singer and others. Sure, the biggest acts won't play unless they can get access to the high capacity stadiums, but you're probably talking 5-10 large concerts a year increase with a new arena.

If this type of business is making or breaking a hotel, pub or restaurant, they probably don't deserve to be open in the first place.

I don't think that is accurate at all.

Financially it makes all the sense in the world to travel the least you can while getting in as many dates as you can when on tour.

It used to be that way back in the day when the dome and Northlands would way more often than not host the same acts on consecutive nights or a day in between. We used to do that run all the time to see them twice. Its a very rare thing now as the acts have outgrown the dome.

When this thing finally gets built there will be a large increase in the amount of acts to play it in comparison to what we see now.

[Northendzone]

^ doesn't the above pretty much capture the whole cost versus benefit of a municipality getting involved in stadium/arena funding

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I don't think that is accurate at all.

Financially it makes all the sense in the world to travel the least you can while getting in as many dates as you can when on tour.

It used to be that way back in the day when the dome and Northlands would way more often than not host the same acts on consecutive nights or a day in between. We used to do that run all the time to see them twice. Its a very rare thing now as the acts have outgrown the dome.

When this thing finally gets built there will be a large increase in the amount of acts to play it in comparison to what we see now.

There's so much that goes into the cost/benefit side for many artists who tour extensively. It's innately obvious to them all that they will still attract fans from across the province even if they only play in one of Edmonton or Calgary. This is exactly why some acts will play multiple shows in one city vs moving on down the road. Sure, not as much as in the past but it still happens.

Unless they are hellbent on it, many will simply decide to not put themselves and their team through the strain of tearing down and opening up shop a few hours down the road in a market that is for all intents and purposes a carbon copy.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Muta

Right, so then what's the reason why Calgary can't be the destination of choice for these shows? The main reason is because Edmonton has the proper infrastructure to host these artists, we don't.

I agree to some extent that some artists won't hit both cities, but that's because Live Nation books the highest bidder on ticket revenue from a geographical radius, conditional on the feasibility of the concert infrastructure required.

A new arena is primarily for sporting events, but the more concerts it can book into its schedule, the more profitable it will be.

Sure, but you can bet this new Calgary arena won't be built like the arenas in cities like Nashville or LA, NYC etc. Venues like these are set up to be state of the art facilities for performers first and foremost, sport second. Hell, the arena in Nashville even has a dedicated test faclitiy on site where performers can set up their stages, perform and practice for tour....artists will go out of their way to book into venues like these. They are booked non-stop because of this and also because they are in cities themselves that are huge tourist destinations. I'm sure it would be shocking how few events are held in Edmonton's new building outside of the NHL/WHL. I'd love to see the figures, but I'd bet it isn't that much more than here.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Sure, but you can bet this new Calgary arena won't be built like the arenas in cities like Nashville or LA, NYC etc. Venues like these are set up to be state of the art facilities for performers first and foremost, sport second. Hell, the arena in Nashville even has a dedicated test faclitiy on site where performers can set up their stages, perform and practice for tour....artists will go out of their way to book into venues like these. They are booked non-stop because of this and also because they are in cities themselves that are huge tourist destinations. I'm sure it would be shocking how few events are held in Edmonton's new building outside of the NHL/WHL. I'd love to see the figures, but I'd bet it isn't that much more than here.

So you're just going by a pure guess as to what Calgary's going to do for their new arena? That's pretty presumptuous. It hasn't even been designed yet.

Also, my friend at Live Nation says the Rogers Arena in Edmonton has been an asset for their bookings to date, as well as for future booking forecasting going forward.

[Robbob]

I read somewhere that the economic impact for Alberta for the Calgary stampede is around 400M. I know it is probably over simplifying things, but it works out to around $40M a day. That probably is ballpark value to the city/province for a single concert date. Even if it is half of that for a top tier concert, having 5 to 10 big events like that would probably add the equivalent of another stampede. That wouldn't suck for the city.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That probably is ballpark value to the city/province for a single concert date.

Keep in mind the Stampede has a daily attendance of 100,000 people, so 5 times the number of a concert. Plus all the Stampede events around the city that aren't tied to the grounds.

So that number seems high to me.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I read somewhere that the economic impact for Alberta for the Calgary stampede is around 400M. I know it is probably over simplifying things, but it works out to around $40M a day. That probably is ballpark value to the city/province for a single concert date. Even if it is half of that for a top tier concert, having 5 to 10 big events like that would probably add the equivalent of another stampede. That wouldn't suck for the city.

Uhhh, I doubt it's even close to that. That's $2100 per attendee. If those were the numbers, cities building arenas would be a no brainer.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Just to clarify, you are requesting that private businesses in the restaurant, hospitality, and tourism industries make a direct cash contribution to the construction of a new arena?

I'm saying that if, as Muta says, their 'livelihoods depend on these types of shows' then it would make sense for them to make an investment in that. I mean why wouldn't you invest in something upon which your livelihood "depends"?

Or I'm facetiously saying that their livelihood in fact doesn't 'depend' on it and saying it does is an exercise in hyperbole.

Take your pick.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Keep in mind the Stampede has a daily attendance of 100,000 people, so 5 times the number of a concert. Plus all the Stampede events around the city that aren't tied to the grounds.

So that number seems high to me.

Fair enough on the attendance, but I am guessing admission would start at 5 times the price to enter the grounds. Those attendants for a concert just won't eat or drink 5 times as much.

Originally Posted by nik-

Uhhh, I doubt it's even close to that. That's $2100 per attendee. If those were the numbers, cities building arenas would be a no brainer.

That is why the next sentence after the one you made bold, I said was "even at half of that". Which you are probably right is closer to the right number, would still be decent for the city.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Fair enough on the attendance, but I am guessing admission would start at 5 times the price to enter the grounds. Those attendants for a concert just won't eat or drink 5 times as much.



That is why the next sentence after the one you made bold, I said was "even at half of that". Which you are probably right is closer to the right number, would still be decent for the city.

Except it's probably not even a tenth.

[Bunk]

Will be chatting with Ryan Pike (fellow CPer Freeway) tomorrow on my podcast about the arena (and the Flames season and off season). Any questions you'd like asked?